The California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) is a California law passed in 1970, shortly after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA ), to institutionalize environmental protection policies across the state. CEQA does not directly regulate land use, but instead requires state and local agencies in California to follow public disclosure and disclosure protocols of the environmental impacts of proposed projects and, in the departure of NEPA, adopt all appropriate measures to reduce the impact. CEQA makes environmental protection a mandatory part of any California (state) and state (local) state and local agency decision-making process. This is also the basis for many lawsuits related to public and private projects.
Video California Environmental Quality Act
Policy
CEQA Statute, California Public Resource Code Ã,§ 21000 et seq., Codifying environmental protection policies across states. According to CEQA, all state and local agencies should give primary consideration to environmental protection in regulating public and private activities, and may not approve existing projects of viable and environmentally friendly or alternative mitigation measures.
Maps California Environmental Quality Act
process overview CEQA
CEQA mandates actions that all state and local agencies must take to advance that policy. Specifically, for any project under the CEQA jurisdiction with potentially significant environmental impacts, the agency should identify mitigation and alternative measures by preparing the Environmental Impact Statement, and should approve the project with appropriate mitigation measures and an environmentally friendly alternative. The California Resources Agency announces CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulation Title 14 § 15000 et seq., Which details the protocols in which state and local institutions comply with CEQA requirements. Appendix A of the CEQA Guidelines encapsulates this protocol in the form of a flowchart. CEQA originally applied only to public projects, but the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, as well as revisions to those words, has expanded the CEQA jurisdiction to virtually all projects in California, including those achieved by private businesses and individuals. Ã,§ 21002.1: "Every public body should mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the project environment that are undertaken or approved whenever feasible to do so." For private projects, CEQA applies when government permission or other use rights are required.
The main agent and responsible agency
- Main Agent: The main agent is responsible for conducting the CEQA review and obtaining final approval of the project. They are responsible for coordinating with project applicants, public institutions and linked during the CEQA process. When more than one agency is involved in the project, the agency with the primary responsibility for approving the project is the lead agency, for the purpose of following the CEQA protocol.
- Responsible: Other bodies with discretionary approval authority over the project are called "responsible institutions." Lead agencies have an obligation to consult with these institutions during the CEQA process to ensure their input is taken into account. Responsible agencies often have an interest in the particular environmental resources they are organizing by organizing.
- Board of Trustees: Agents who have jurisdiction over resources held in trust for people. This agency has no power of approval of the project.
Initial study
If a project is not excluded from the CEQA, the lead agency may conduct a preliminary study to first assess the impact of the project. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines lists the types of environmental impacts considered in the checklist form. This preliminary study guides the main agencies to prepare either a negative declaration, a negative statement mitigation, or an environmental impact report depending on impact assessment. The completion of the preliminary study also provides an opportunity for project applicants to change the scope of their project early in the CEQA process if preliminary studies show significant impact (s) as possible. If the main agency determines the project clearly has a significant impact, they can pass the initial study stage and immediately undertake the Environmental Impact Statement.
Threshold of significance
Under CEQA, every agency in the state "is encouraged to develop and publish the significance threshold" to compare the environmental impact of the project. The threshold should be published for public review and supported by substantial evidence before adoption. A lead agency will usually consider the environmental impact of a project to be significant if and only if they exceed a set threshold. According to a 2001 survey, however, some agencies have actually developed a threshold of significance. Survey analysts wonder, "If most agencies do not develop thresholds and publish them for public review, what criteria are they using?" Without a threshold of significance developed independently by key agencies, the impact assessment applies the significant criteria described in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the Statutes and CEQA Guidelines, produced by the California Planning and Research Office (OPR). Major agencies may also postpone the authority agencies issuing recommended guidelines for the resources they administer. Examples including the California Conservation Department have a threshold test for assessing impacts on agricultural resources using the LESA model, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has published guidelines for air quality impacts.
Analysis of environmental impact
The key institutions should analyze the impact of the project on the 18 different environmental resource factors described in Annex G during their CEQA review. The next section discusses the background and settings for each resource factor; and how key agencies conduct their analysis and authority to threshold their significance for this resource.
Aesthetics
Agricultural resources
Air quality
Biological resources
Cultural Resources
Geity and Land
Greenhouse gases
GHG legislative history; rule-making; regulated greenhouse gases and sources; and the CEQA GHG responsibility institution are discussed below. The next section describes the analytical approach to determining whether a project has significant GHG impact using guidance from two of the Air Quality Management District in California. Finally, the mitigation measures recommended by the district and used on various projects are presented for the analysis of the impact of GHG.
Introduction and settings
Greenhouse gas emissions need not be analyzed as an impact on the environment when CEQA was initially adopted. Some scientists have since linked greenhouse gases to climate change and have had a negative impact on people and the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report in 2007 stating that human activities are responsible for rising global temperatures. As a result of this assessment, the California Legislature passed the Bill of 32 Assembly, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which mandates greenhouse gas emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the S-3-05 Executive Order in June 2005 declaring California vulnerable to the impacts of climate change which resulted in the loss of Sierra snowpack for water supply and rising sea levels threatening real estate and coastal habitats. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also signed an S-21-09 Executive Order in September 2009 that requires 33% of California's electricity to be sourced from renewable resources by 2020 to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This series of environmental legislation and evidence of environmental impacts has led California to enforce requirements for key agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions in their CEQA review.
The California Attorney General's Office sent several letters of comment to lead the agency urging them to consider greenhouse gas emissions during their CEQA review. The Bill 97 Senate requires the Governor's Planning and Research Office to develop and recommend new guidelines for analyzing the impact of greenhouse gases under CEQA. California's Natural Resources Agency adopted a new guideline as of December 31, 2009, which requires major agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions under section 15064.4 during their CEQA review through California.
The main category of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity is carbon dioxide. Some other major gases also include methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons. Greenhouse gas sources resulting from project construction activities are typically generated from material transport to project sites and petrol-based equipment used during the construction of the project itself. Stationary sources emit greenhouse gases from a point source such as a smoke pile. Examples of stationary sources include coal or gas-fired power plants, incinerators, refineries, bakeries, or chemical plants. Non-stationary projects such as housing and commercial development, schools, and related infrastructure can also contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases. These projects release greenhouse gases from sources such as vehicle mileage travel to the site, energy to run the facility, and landscaping maintenance equipment. Conversion of land use can reduce sequestration of carbon dioxide vegetation.
The State Air Resources Board or the California Air Resources Board is a state agency assigned to monitor and regulate sources of greenhouse gas emissions under AB32. California thirty-five local air pollution control districts (APCD's) and air quality management districts (AQMD's) are the agencies responsible primarily for regulating stationary sources of air pollution. This aerial district has traditionally provided guidance to lead agencies, such as districts, municipalities and public utilities, on the evaluation of air pollutants under CEQA.
Analyze approach
The main institution is a public institution that has the primary responsibility for approving the proposed project. The main institution determines what type of environmental document will be prepared (Negative Declaration Mitigation, Environmental Impact Statement, etc.) and has the discretion to adopt more conservative significance criteria than required by CEQA. Ã,§§15064.4 provides key agency policy to determine what type of analytical approach is used for a particular project level GHG analysis:
"(1) Use a model or methodology to measure the greenhouse gas emissions generated from the project, and which model or methodology to use.The main agent has the discretion to select the model or methodology deemed most appropriate provided it supports its decision with substantial evidence. the limitations of a particular model or methodology chosen to be used, and/or
(2) Rely on qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. "
The main agency is tasked with making a good-faith effort to "describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated from the project."
The GHG lifecycle analysis includes the full amount of aggregate GHG produced from the extraction, production, distribution and use of energy or fuel. If the main body must complete a GHG lifecycle analysis under CEQA, they should measure the GHG generated not only within the boundary space of the project site, but the resulting GHG from product transport to site and product supply chain emissions. Some of these energy emissions can be produced overseas which cause difficulties by key agencies in the verification and enforcement of emissions thresholds. The current CEQA guidelines do not require a GHG emission lifecycle analysis because the term is not well defined and too speculative, and the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) removes the term "Lifecycle" from the CEQA guidelines in 2010. If any part of the analysis is considered speculative by the lead agency and not supported by reliable and quantifiable scientific evidence, the impact shall be eliminated under CEQA 15145 Directive.
The significance threshold can be determined with reference to the CEQA guidelines of district air quality management, although the final policy for the threshold remains with the main agent. The Gulf Region Air Quality Management District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District are the only districts to date that have adopted CEQA guidelines. Below is the highlight of BAAQMD and SCAQMD:
Area Air Quality Management Area Bay Area
Bay Area Quality Management District (BAAQMD) usually acts as the agency responsible for setting CEQA air emission limits in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. BAAQMD adopted a new guide on June 2, 2010 to address the GHG emissions threshold associated with operational-related emissions from stationary sources and projects other than stationary sources. Stationary sources are allowed to emit up to 10,000 metric tons (MT) CO 2 e / years. Other projects are permitted to issue 1,100 MT CO 2 e/yr; 4.6 MT CO 2 e/SP/yr; or compliance with an eligible greenhouse gas reduction strategy. BAAQMD has not set a threshold for emissions construction, suspending this responsibility to the CEQA-led agency. Chapter 8.2 of the Air Quality Guidelines BAAQMD recommends agency leaders measure construction emissions and assess if they are in conflict with AB 32 goals. BAAQMD also recommends the use of URBEMIS air modeling software to calculate GHG emissions on land use change projects, and RoadMod software for linear projects. BAAQMD recommends an operational emissions analysis in a five-step process: eliminating greenhouse gas analyzes if the project attributes do not pass the screening criteria, measuring emissions using the appropriate model, comparing emissions that are not reduced by the threshold, implementing mitigation measures if the project exceeds the threshold of significance, then compare again the emissions with the threshold of significance.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has developed a tiered analysis process to determine the significance of project-related GHG emissions. If a project is not excluded or excluded, and if it can not be shown that the GHG emissions from the project are within the GHG budget in an approved regional plan, then the project applicant is required to demonstrate that the project's GHG emission is below, or reduced to less than, the following significance applies:
- 10,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year for industrial projects; or
- ? 3,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year for commercial or residential projects
Impact mitigation measures
Leadership organizations may apply different mitigation measures to offset or reduce greenhouse gas emissions. BAAQMD recommends the use of the following best management practices for construction activities: 15% of heavy equipment and project transport fleets use alternative fuels and/or electricity, recycle or reuse 50% waste disassembly, and use 10% of local building materials. Other measures used to reduce construction emissions include limiting idle time, car collection, and purchase and retirement from offsite carbon credits.
BAAQMD recommends a lead agency to mitigate operational emissions by adopting a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy consistent with AB 32. This strategy can be incorporated into a general plan or a major lead-level policy to assess greenhouse gas emissions. This strategy involves assessing "current as usual" emissions and emissions estimates to calculate baselines for reductions. The agency then proposed measures to reduce these emissions to meet the expectations of AB 32. BAAQMD recommends that the project be reduced to the maximum before considering off-site mitigation options, and offsite mitigation should be measurable, workable and occur within the Gulf Region nine district.
Dangers and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public services
Recreation
Transportation and traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and System Services
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental review level
Projects may be exempted from CEQA if they are ministerial, have been excluded by the California Congress through legal exclusion, or fall under one of the exclusion classes under a CEQA-recognized category that has no significant environmental impact. If the main agency determines the project can not have significant environmental impact after completing the initial study, the EIR is not required, but the main agency must still prepare a Negative Declaration that discloses an impact analysis. If the project can have significant environmental impacts, but the main agency has included mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to be less significant, no EIR is required, but the main agency must prepare a Negative Dimi- nated Declaration that shows how all identified significant impacts will be mitigated to below the level of significance. Finally, if the main agency determines the project may have significant environmental impact, the main agency should prepare the EIR.
Ministerial Decree
CEQA applies to any action when a project requires discretionary approval by a state or local government agency. The project may also require a ministerial permit which must comply with the general plan and local regulations such as building permits or marriage certificates. These decisions can not be denied and provide a government body without a rating as the initiator meets the specifications detailed in the license or license requirements. CEQA does not apply when only the minister's approval is required.
Required exclusions
California state legislatures, sometimes, cancel CEQA in such a way that a particular project or type of project can proceed without EIR. One such cancellation took place in October 2009, with the passage of a union-backed law that excludes the proposed construction of the Los Angeles Stadium from the CEQA requirement. The retraction is an ongoing lawsuit, brought by eight residents from neighboring towns, challenging the validity of the developer EIR. The developer initially prepared the EIR for commercial development on the site, then prepared an additional EIR to include a 75,000 seat stadium located at 3,000 feet of the house in the neighboring town; the plaintiffs argue that a new EIR studying the whole project is needed. State officials said the cancellation ended the misuse of CEQA by individuals trying to block the project; at the signing ceremony, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would "end the reckless suit." A plaintiff in the lawsuit said the cancellation "opens the door for other developers... to hire lobbyists... and get an exception from environmental legislation." An environmental lawyer says that a slow economy may encourage developers to seek more cancellations, as legislators become more eager to stimulate job growth.
Categorical release
Some of the categorical exclusions for the project are listed under Title 14 of the California Rules of Conduct, Chapter 3, Article 19. These exclusions include those projects that have significant environmental impact and are in accordance with the descriptions of several categories listed in Article 19. Exceptions to the general categories used by institution is 15301 for maintenance of existing facilities. Since projects are already under construction, projects often do not have significant new impacts. Agencies should not submit any CEQA findings to categorically excluded projects. They can be legally challenged by the public whether the project should undergo CEQA. The primary agency may file a Notice of Exemption (NOE) to trigger a 35-day term law from time constraints for legal challenges or, if no NOE is lodged, a 180-day restriction law applies.
Negative Declaration (ND)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
After the initial study is completed, the lead agency can then determine whether the project can have a significant impact on the environment. The main institution should propose mitigation measures to reduce any impact to less than significant "to the maximum extent possible." The main institution then prepares a Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and publishes documents for public review for at least 21 days. After the comment is considered, the principal institution may conduct ND/MND recirculation if public commenting requires the scope of the project to change substantially, or the principal agency may adopt the document. The Governing Body shall file a Decision of Establishment (NOD) after adopting the document with a 30 day legal limit for legal challenges. If the lead agency is presented with a fair argument that shows substantial evidence of a project that has significant environmental impacts after mitigation measures are exhausted, the lead agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report. Thus, in essence, the ND/MND can only be used to meet CEQA requirements for projects that have no adverse negative environmental impact (ND) or which all potentially significant negative impacts have been "avoided, minimized or minimized" to below the threshold. significance (MND). If significant impacts persist, the EIR should be prepared and a Consideration of Exceeding Statement is necessary.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
According to the case law, the environmental impact report (EIR) is in the "heart of CEQA". The EIR serves to inform government and public agencies about the environmental impact of a project. Furthermore, EIRs are required to propose mitigation and alternatives that can reduce or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts; because the EIR is considered the heart of CEQA, mitigation and alternatives are considered the heart of the EIR. One alternative that the main institution should consider is that there is no alternative project, ie project cancellation, with the future, not going according to the existing plan (ie, status quo). Among all the alternatives, the EIR identifies more environmentally-friendly alternatives; if a more eco-friendly alternative is an alternative without a project, the EIR identifies a more environmentally-friendly alternative among other alternatives.
The EIR process begins with a circulation Notice of Preparation (NOP) that notifies the public, responsible agencies, trust agencies, and OPR that the EIR will be prepared for the given project. The NOP should include details of sufficient project descriptions and possible environmental impacts so that agencies and the general public can make meaningful comments on proposed projects for analysis in the EIR. NOP comment period is no shorter than 30 days. After drafting the EIR, the Completed Notice (NOC) must be submitted to the Planning and Research Office covering the project location, the location of the review copy, and the public comment review period information. The lead agency should provide a public notice of the EIR design at the same time issuing the NOC. This notice should include the location of any public meeting intended to request comments on the EIR draft. If the EIR draft is circulated through the State Clearinghouse, the public comment period must be a minimum of 45 days. The main institution should prepare the final EIR before approving the project. The contents of the final EIR are specified in Ã,§15132 of CEQA guidelines, but responses to compile EIR comments are the focus of the document. The lead agent then endorsed the final EIR and published its findings. If significant and unavoidable impacts persist after mitigation, A Consideration of Consideration Statement must be prepared. Finally, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or execute the project at which point the notification of determination (NOD) must be filed within five days of approval. The appeal and litigation periods remain after NOD.
Comparison with similar laws
Similar laws at the federal and state level require an environmental impact assessment before the start of major projects.
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA, a United States federal law passed a year before CEQA, is similar to CEQA in both laws that define environmental protection policies, and the protocols used by all agencies in their respective jurisdictions create an environmental protection part of their decision-making process.
NEPA has a narrower scope than CEQA. NEPA applies only to projects that receive federal funding or approval by a federal agency, while CEQA applies to projects that accept all forms of state, local, or state approval, permit or control. Thus, development projects in California are funded only by private sources and do not require approval by federal agents to be exempt from NEPA, but are likely to be subject to CEQA.
The environmental impact statement (EIS) required under the NEPA and EIR required under CEQA is a similar document, but has several important differences. For example, under NEPA, an agency may list all reasonable alternatives and impacts, then choose a project they like without regard to the severity of its impact, even if it is more harmful to the environment. Under CEQA, key agencies are required to reduce all "adverse" environmental impacts to "the maximum extent possible" and may approve the project only if the agency adopts an Exceeding Consideration Statement that details economic, legal, social, technological overrides, or other considerations more bigger than a significant project impact that can not be avoided. If a large federal project, or a project using federal funds seeks approval in California, the main agency should prepare EIS and EIR, but both can be combined into one document (because EIS and EIR have the same elements for most parts). The document, however, must be processed through CEQA and NEPA approval measures.
Legal in another state
In 2005, fourteen states and the District of Columbia had CEQA style laws that required reported impacts for development. CEQA affects many of these laws, and New York state law uses CEQA as the foundation. The Connecticut Environment Policy Act (CEPA) is modeled on CEQA and requires key institutions to prepare an EIE Evaluation that is very similar to the California EIR. State laws are not entirely similar to CEQA, as most apply only to public projects (rather than all public actions, such as CEQA) and few have strict review standards.
Litigation
The wide coverage of CEQA and the lack of clear thresholds often leads to litigation, both by groups supporting development, and individuals and institutions opposed to such developments.
Complaint
Environmental groups largely agree that building solid housing in urban areas ("infill development") is better for the environment than converting open space into new homes. However 4 of the 5 lawsuits CEQA targets infill development projects; only 20% of the CEQA lawsuits targeting the "greenfield" project will turn open space into housing.
The CEQA lawsuits are often used by groups that want to block proposed projects for reasons other than environmental impacts. In one case, anti-abortion activists filed a CEQA lawsuit to try to block the proposed Planned Parenthood building in South San Francisco. They mention the noise caused by their own protests as environmental impacts that require mitigation. Trade unions filed a CEQA suit against projects to try to get them to pay the prevailing wage. Only 13 percent of CEQA lawsuits are filed by environmental groups such as Sierra Club.
The CEQA plaintiffs such as community and environmental groups often challenge the project with a negative declaration, arguing that the EIR should be done. Litigation also occurs on the grounds that the EIR is too short or ignores the likely impact, as there are no guidelines for the length or content of the EIR.
The plaintiff also sometimes accused the developer of a so-called piece-piece practice, in which the project was analyzed gradually by the parts to make the environmental impact appear smaller for the supervisory agency.
The plaintiffs CEQA succeeded on one such claim in June 2009, regarding the expansion of Chevron Richmond Refinery, the largest company in Richmond, California. The judge ruled that Chevron was wrong by defining the project inconsistently, and Richmond was wrong to allow Chevron to eat his project, and allowed Chevron to develop a mitigation plan after the project began. Therefore the judge ruled that the EIR was insufficient to meet CEQA requirements, ordered the preparation of a new EIR covering the entire project that was accurately defined before the expansion of the refinery could proceed.
Settlements
Plaintiffs in the CAQA lawsuit seek various forms of indemnity, such as changing the EIR, preparing a new EIR, approving mitigation measures, or paying money to local agencies to offset environmental impacts.
See also
- California Environmental Protection Agency
References
Further reading
- Fulton, W; Shigley, P Guide to Third Edition California Planning , (2005) Point Arena, California ISBNÃ, 0-923956-45-X
- CEQA at 40: A look back, and forwards - material from a conference held at UC Davis School of Law, November 4, 2011
- Cecily Talbert Barclay; Daniel J Curtin; Matthew S Gray California Land Use and Planning Law , (2012) Point Arena, California ISBN 9781938166013
External links
- California Natural Resources Agency, CEQA site
- Governor's Planning and Research Office, CEQA site
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments